Re: maintenance: mail.dnswl.org

[Benny Pedersen <me@xxxxxxx>]

Alessandro Vesely skrev den 2022-08-15 12:10:
> On Sun 14/Aug/2022 22:39:51 +0200 Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > A. Schulze skrev den 2022-08-14 21:15:
> > > Am 14.08.22 um 21:11 schrieb Vsevolod Stakhov:
> > > > The `h=` tag still looks quite strange.
>
>
> Is it necessary to sign autocrypt, openpgp, MIME-Version, Content-Type?
>
>
> > > could you be more detailed about which 'h=' and how it should look
> > > like from your point of view?
> >
> > its imho no point in d=dnswl.org when from: is not that domain, its 
> > signed, but it did not have the private key for from: domain, cleanup 
> > in rspamd on this
>
>
> IMHO, it makes a lot of sense to take some responsibility for the
> messages that are being broadcasted by the list.  That's what DKIM is
> for.
>
>
> As the message is not altered by the list, The original From: domain
> doesn't have to be changed.  That's good for DMARC.

no one have done ATPS yet ? :=)

in spamassassin its someway just 3dr party dkim test

whitelist_from_dkim *@* dnswl.org

current dnswl.org allow this as it is now, but imho it should not

and about the h= tag, try to limit header signed to what was in the 
originating mail, not all headers added later